Ignore it? Hardly, it’s the entirety of your argument. He makes claims without laying any legal foundation for them and the only authority he speaks from is that he’s a politician who once held political office. I don’t ignore what he said, I disagree with it, and this entire exchange has been about why.
He held political office at the time he said it: EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security. That he doesn't hold that office NOW, is neither here nor there.
Check the dates, and the absence of the word 'former' in this article:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3135368,00.html
No, again I don’t ignore it, I disagree that the things you list add up to “control.” I don’t claim that Israel would need to control every aspect of Gaza government for Gaza to be “occupied”, but the reverse claim, that if Israel controls any aspect of Gaza government then it’s still an “occupier” is also patently false.
I don't claim "any" control would do.
"Control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza" is the issue quoted from Solana. And it is significant control.
I find it more rational to conclude that the EU and the US, two allies of Israel, conclude that Gaza is still occupied based on the level of control that Israel has rather than that they are applying a double standard.
And, yes, they do make that conclusion. The quotes I've taken from government websites are not typos. If the UK government didn't think that Gaza was occupied, they would have corrected their travel advice webpage by now. If the US government didn't think that Gaza was occupied, they'd have told the CIA to correct their factbook.
How is it more sensible to conclude that these governments think otherwise? Because they don't take every opportunity to contradict an ally? That's hardly convincing. They've each taken at least one opportunity. That's enough.
Water and electricity are provided as per prior agreements between Israel and Palestinians, and I don’t know about where you live, but where I live utilities are the function of private companies.
Private companies regulated by a government that keeps track of things like energy needs.
Taxes on imports? I don’t know about those, but Israel has been responsible for collecting Palestinian sales taxes from the beginning, as per their agreement with Arafat (which is how Arafat got so rich. He insisted the funds go directly to him and he would then distribute them. )
How does this change that they do it? Could Hamas get them to stop and then have a tax policy of their own?
I’m not aware of anyone making an issue of the US occupying Fallujah during the time when they had to re-take it from insurgents. It’s clear to me the operation was to re-occupy the city from its new occupiers.
But, if you'd read your source, you would be aware that it is an issue in occupation law.
Of course you do, because he starts with the opinion you want.
Solana also had a rather important job at the time. One which gave him access to all sorts of legal advice.
But let’s be honest. If you took a knock to the head resulting in temporary amnesia and woke up with no memory of any of your own political opinions and not even remembering who the Israelis and Palestinians are and had to make a snap judgment in order to save your own life, would you trust:
1) The guy who’s politics are hard-core socialist, who’s educational background is in physics and who went on to a career in politics,
or…
2) The international attorney who was trained in international humanitarian law who’s argued cases before the International Criminal Court and who is to all appearances politically neutral?
The choice seems pretty easy to me.
Not really. Because (1) doesn't need to be a lawyer himself, he has legal advisors. He wasn't acting as a lawyer -- he was acting as a representive of the EU. That role doesn't allow him to pass off his own opinion as EU policy. He would get in trouble if that is what he did. So when he says that Israel's control of land, air and sea passages in Gaza won't permit the international community to recognise the end of the occupation -- that is significant. It's not the opinion of a physicist who is guessing at international law. It is the opinion of a representative of a major power with international responsibilities. I trust he talked to a few lawyers before he opened his mouth.
In any case, which argument (number 1 to 4) is more important (and that's what I disagreed on in the actual comment you quoted) isn't itself important.
What does your source say in argument number 4? (The one your source thinks is the most important).
I'll start by repeating that (in the comments) he doesn't seem to be so sure of the conclusion he first gave. He allows that his first impression could be wrong. He also makes clear that (in his point 4, rather than earlier points) it is not an issue of Israel having troops in Gaza -- his most important factor is the ease with which Israel can exercise its control in Gaza. That is why he brings up the issue of the Sunni triangle in Iraq and the occupation of Yugoslavia. Issues you seem to gloss over because they don't match what you've been saying.
In the main text, his impression was that Gaza should not be considered occupied because of the difficulty Israel would have exercising control there. He also said that "a reasonable case can be made that Israel retains effective control over Gaza in this potential sense" -- so no need to be a revisionist to make that case, you can be reasonable! Do you agree with your source on that?
The first comment, taking up his Sunni Triangle example, noted the difficulty America had retaking Fallujah. To which your source admits that the comparison of the level of difficulty isn't obvious (would require expert testimony) and his "initial impression was the opposite, but it might well be wrong".
Not wrong about Israeli troops being in Gaza. I somehow feel the need to emphasise that point. The issue of troops being in Gaza was addressed in his points 1-3.
He says he could be wrong about whether the level of difficulty Israel would have in exercising control in Gaza would be such as to lead to a conclusion that Gaza is not occupied.
Do you agree with my interpretation of what your source said?
If “everyone” is defined as the anti-Israel echo-chamber, then yes. Finding actual governments issuing policy statements to the effect is much more difficult. If it were easy, you’d be quoting them instead of travel advisories and reference tools.
So the need to find out what would change the mind of these travel advisories and reference tools is behind the need for a second disengagement. It's nothing to do with changing the minds of the US and UK governments that have responsibility for the CIA factbook and government issued travel advice.
ETA: Mycroft's source
http://www.ejiltalk.org/is-gaza-still-occupied-by-israel/
...funny stuff.
